LexDELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus ASHA JAIN & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 626 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 15 S.C.R. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. ASHA JAIN & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 8088 of 2022) NOVEMBER 09, 2022 [M. R. SHAH AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.] Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) – High Court relying on Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. reported as [2014] 1 SCR 783, and observing that as compensation has not been paid and/or tendered to the recorded owners/petitioners, declared that the acquisition w.r.t the land in question is deemed to have lapsed by virtue of s.24(2) – On appeal, held: The case relied upon by High Court has been overruled in the Constitution Bench case of Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129 wherein it has been held that the deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings u/s.24(2) takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the 2013 Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor compensation has been paid – Thus, in case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse – Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse – In the present case, possession of the land in question was taken over in 2005, as also observed by High Court – Further, according to the original writ petitioner, she acquired the right in the land in question pursuant to Agreement to Sell dtd. 09.05.05 – Agreement to Sell by itself does not confer any right, title, or interest – Original writ petitioner can be said to be subsequent purchaser and/or has acquired the right subsequently – Subsequent purchaser has no right to claim lapse of acquisition proceedings – Impugned judgment set aside – Writ petition filed by the original writ petitioner before High Court, dismissed – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – s.4. Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed. [2022] 15 S.C.R. 626 626 A B C D E F G H 627 Delhi Development Authority v. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors., Decision of Supreme Court in Civil appeal No. 3073 of 2022 – relied on. Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014] 1 SCR 783; Meera Sahni v. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi & Ors., (2008) 9 SCC 173 and M. Venkatesh & Ors. v. Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority (2015) 17 SCC 1 : [2015] 11 SCR 454; Shiv Kumar & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (2019) 10 SCC 229 – referred to. Case Law Reference [2014] 1 SCR 783 referred to Para 3 [2020] 3 SCR 1 followed Para 3.1 [2015] 11 SCR 454 referred to Para 4.1 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8088 of 2022. From the Judgment and Order dated 08.08.2017 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 2987 of 2016. Ms. Sunieta Ojha, Adv. for the Appellant. Aakash Dubey, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Atul Kumar, Ms. Sweety Singh, Rahul Pandey, Rajiv Ranjan, Advs. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by M. R. SHAH, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 2987 of 2016 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondent No. 1 herein and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2013”), the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) has preferred the present appeal. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. ASHA JAIN & ORS. A B C D E F G H 628 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 15 S.C.R. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length. 3. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case and even as observed by the High Court, the possession of the land in question was taken over in the year 2005, however, observing that as the compensation has not been paid and/or tendered to the recorded owners/petitioners, relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183, the High Court has allowed the writ petition and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in quest
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.